“When will we ever use this?” This is a question that every teacher has
heard at some point or at several points in time. But a better question would be,
“Where has this been used this in the past?” It is important to not only look to
the future, but to also look to the past. To fully understand a topic, whether it
deals with science, social studies, or mathematics, its history should be explored.
Specifically, to fully understand geometric constructions the history is definitely
important to learn. As the world progresses and evolves so too does geometry.
In high school classrooms today the role of geometry constructions has
dramatically changed.
In order to understand the role of geometry today, the history of geometry
must be discussed. As Marshall and Rich state in the article, The Role of History in
a Mathematics Class [8],
“…history has a vital role to play in today’s mathematics
classrooms. It allows students and teachers to think and talk about
mathematics in meaningful ways. It demythologizes mathematics
by showing that it is the creation of human beings. History
enriches the mathematics curriculum. It deepens the values and
broadens the knowledge that students construct in mathematics
class.”
This quote truly sums up the importance of relating the past to the present.
Students will benefit from knowing about how mathematical topics arose and
why they are still important today.
Lamphier Page 1 of 40
To thoroughly examine the history of geometry, we must go back to
ancient Egyptian mathematics. A topic that often amazes people is the beautiful
geometry in Egyptian pyramids. The mathematics and specifically geometry
involved in the building of these pyramids is extensive. From Egypt, Thales
brought geometric ideas and introduced them to Greece. This then led the
important evolution of Greek deductive proofs. Thales is known to have come
up with five theorems in geometry [14].
1. A circle is bisected by any diameter.
2. The base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal.
3. The vertical angles between two intersecting straight lines are equal.
4. Two triangles are congruent if they have two angles and one side
equal.
5. An angle in a semicircle is a right angle.
However, the title of the “father of geometry” is often given to Euclid.
Living around the time of 300 BC, he is most known for his book The Elements.
He took the ideas of Thales and other mathematicians and put them down in an
organized collection of definitions, axioms and postulates. From these basics, the
rest of geometry evolves. In The Elements, the first four definitions are as follows:
1. A point is that which has no part.
2. A line is breadthless length.
3. The extremities of a line are points.
Lamphier Page 2 of 40
4. A straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.
Sir Thomas Heath wrote a respected translation of Euclid’s The Elements in 1926
entitled The Thirteen Books of Euclid’s Elements [11]. This translation seems to be
the most accepted version of Euclid’s writings given modifications and
additions.
Since the time of Euclid there have been three famous problems which
have captivated the minds and of many mathematicians. These three problems
of antiquity are as follows:
1. Squaring the Circle
2. Doubling the Cube
3. Trisecting an Angle.
Far back in history and to this present day, these problems are discussed in
detail.
In early geometry, the tools of the trade were a compass and straightedge.
A compass was strictly used to make circles of a given radius. Greeks used
collapsible compasses, which would automatically collapse. Nowadays, we use
rigid compasses, which can hold a certain radius, but is has been shown that
construction with rigid compass and straightedge is equivalent to construction
with collapsible compass and straightedge. However, compasses have changed
dramatically over the years. Some compasses have markings used to construct
Lamphier Page 3 of 40
circles with a given radius. Of course, under the strict rules of Greeks, these
compasses would not have been allowed.
More strictly, there were no markings on the straightedge. A straightedge was to
be used only for drawing a segment between two points. There were very
specific rules about what could and could not be used for mathematical
drawings. These drawings, known as constructions, had to be exact. If the rules
were broken, the mathematics involved in the constructions was often
disregarded. When describing these concepts to students nowadays, showing
pictures of ancient paintings with these tools help illustrate the importance and
commonplace of geometry and these aforementioned tools.
A portion of Raphaello Sanzio’s painting The School of Athens from 16th century
Lamphier Page 4 of 40
The Measurers: A Flemish Image of Mathematics in the 16th century
In regards to the history of constructions, a Danish geometer, Georg Mohr,
proved that any construction that could be created by using a compass and
straightedge could in fact be created by a compass alone. This surprising fact
published in 1672 is normally credited to the Italian mathematician, Lorenzo
Mascherone from the eighteenth century. Hence, constructions created using
only compasses are called Mascheroni constructions [19].
After Euclid, geometry continued to evolve led by Archimedes,
Apollonius and others. However, the next mathematicians to make a dramatic
shift in the nature of geometry were the French mathematicians, René Descartes
and Pierre de Fermat, in the seventeenth century, who introduced coordinate
Lamphier Page 5 of 40
geometry. This advance of connecting algebra to geometry directly led to other
great advances in many areas of mathematics.
Non-Euclidean geometry was the next major movement. János Bolyai,
following the footsteps of his father, attempted to create a new axiom to replace
Euclid’s fifth axiom. Around 1824, this study led to development of a new
geometry called non-Euclidean geometry. Another mathematician that made
contributions to the formation of non-Euclidean geometry was Nikolai Ivanovich
Lobachevsky. In 1840, Lobachevsky published Géométrie imaginaire [12]. Because
of Bolyai and Lobachevsky’s direct connection to Gauss, some believe that nonEuclidean geometry should in fact be credited to Gauss [15].
Even now, geometry continues to progress. In addition, how schools
teach geometry has continued to change. In the past, compass and straightedge
constructions were a part of the curriculum. However, in most recent years,
constructions have faded out. In older textbooks, constructions were entire
chapters. However, in newer textbooks, constructions are in the middle of
chapters and discussed very briefly.
Instead of concentrating on paper and pencil, compass and straightedge
constructions, current books tend to emphasize the use of dynamic computer
software, such as Geometer’s Sketchpad.
The sloppiness and inaccuracy of
man-made constructions could be avoided by the use of technology. Though
there are still educators that believe that using this technology is not true
Lamphier Page 6 of 40
geometry, most realize the benefits that such software can have on
comprehension.
Will true Euclidean constructions using a compass and straightedge on
paper soon be a thing of the past? Will it be another lost mathematical concept
like finding square roots and logarithms? Will it always been seen as an
important link to the past? Will it be recognized as important but is replaced by
constructions using technology?
As a link to the past, students might find constructions interesting when
related to the three famous problems of antiquity of circle squaring, cube
duplicating, and angle trisecting. These problems went unsolved for many years
under the Greek rules of constructions. It was not until several hundred years
later that they were shown to be impossible using only a compass and
straightedge. The mathematics in of circle squaring, cube duplicating, and angle
trisecting is interesting and can lead to good discussions.
The basics of constructions must be discussed before the complexity of the
three ancient problems can be explained. The ancient Greeks’ way of
representing numbers was cumbersome, with no symbol for 0 and no placevalue. Perhaps as a consequence, they did arithmetic geometrically. We will use
modern notation to analyze what numbers could be constructed by straightedge
and compass and to study the three ancient problems.
In order to make arithmetic constructions, two segments, one of length x
and the other length y, and a unit length of 1 are given. Through basic geometry
Lamphier Page 7 of 40
and algebra, other related lengths can be created. Five arithmetic constructions
are x  y , x  y , xy , x y , and
x . In order to carry out these arithmetic
constructions, we must first be able to construct a parallel line.
Parallel lines:
Given: AB and point C not on line AB
Construct: a line parallel to AB .
B
A
D
1. With a straightedge, draw AC .
G
2. With a compass, construct a circle
C
F
with center at A and a radius of AB .
E
Let D be the point of intersection of
this circle with AC .
3. With a compass, construct a circle with center at C and a radius of AB .
Let E be the point of intersection, not between A and C, of this circle
with AC .
4. With a compass, construct a circle with center at E and a radius of DB .
Let F be the point of intersection of this circle and circle C.
5. With a straightedge, connect points C and F. Then AB CF .
Addition:
Given: two lengths x and y
A
B
C
Lamphier Page 8 of 40
D
Construct: x  y
1. With a straightedge, draw AD , so that AD  x  y .
2. With a compass, construct a circle with center at A and a radius of length
x. Let B be the point of intersection of this circle with AD .
3. With a compass, construct a circle with center at B and a radius of length
y. Let C be the point of intersection of this circle with BD .
4. With a straightedge, connect points A and C. Then AC  x  y .
Thus, the construction of a addition is possible.
Subtraction:
Given: two lengths x and y, where x  y
Construct: x  y
1. With a straightedge, draw AD .
A
C
B
2. With a compass, construct a circle with
center at A and a radius of length x. Let
B be the point of intersection of this
circle with AD .
3. With a compass, construct a circle with center at B and a radius of length
y. Let C be the point of intersection of this circle with AB .
4. With a straightedge, connect points A and C. Then AC  x  y .
Thus, the construction of a difference is possible.
Lamphier Page 9 of 40
D
The details of three of the arithmetic constructions, xy , x y , and
x , make use of
similar triangles as shown below.
Multiplication:
G
Given: three lengths x, y and unit 1
E
Construct: xy
D
1. With a straightedge, draw AF so that
AF  1  x .
B
A
C
2. With a compass, construct a circle with
center at A and a radius of length 1. Let
B be the point of intersection of this
circle with AF . AB  1
3. With a compass, construct a circle with center at B and a radius of length
x. Let C be the point of intersection of this circle with BF . BC  x
4. With a straightedge, draw AG , with G not on AF .
5. With a compass, construct a circle with center at A and a radius of length
y. Let D be the point of intersection of this circle with AG . AD  y
6. With a straightedge, construct DB .
7. Construct the line parallel to DB passing through point C.
8. Let E be the intersection of the parallel line and AG .
9. With a straightedge, connect points D and E. Then DE  xy .
Lamphier Page 10 of 40
F
Since BD CE , ABD ~ ACE by Angle-Angle Similarity. Therefore, the
following proportion holds true:
1
y
, DE  xy . Thus, the construction of a

x DE
product is possible.
Division:
Given: three lengths x, y and unit 1
G
Construct: y x
D
1. With a straightedge, draw AF .
E
2. With a compass, construct a circle with
center at A and a radius of length x. Let
A
C
B
B be the point of intersection of this
circle with AF . AB  x
3. With a compass, construct a circle with center at A and a radius of length
1. Let C be the point of intersection of this circle with AF . AC  1
4. With a straightedge, draw AG , with G not on AF .
5. With a compass, construct a circle with center at A and a radius of length
y. Let D be the point of intersection of this circle with AG . AD  y
6. With a straightedge, construct DB .
7. Construct the line parallel to DB passing through point C.
8. Let E be the intersection of the parallel line and AG .
Lamphier Page 11 of 40
F
9. With a straightedge, connect points A and E. Then AE  y x .
Since BD CE , ABD ~ ACE by Angle-Angle Similarity. Therefore, the
following proportion holds true:
1 AE
, AE  y x . Thus, the construction of a

x
y
quotient is possible.
Square Root:
E
Given: two lengths x and unit 1
Construct:
x
A
D
B
C
1. With a straightedge, draw AF .
2. With a compass, construct a circle with
center at A and a radius of length 1. Let
B be the point of intersection of this
circle with AF . AB  1
3. With a compass, construct a circle with center at B and a radius of length
x. Let C be the point of intersection of this circle with BF . BC  x
4. Construct the midpoint D of AC .
5. With a compass, construct a circle with center at D and a radius of length
DA .
6. Construct a line perpendicular to AC passing through point B.
Lamphier Page 12 of 40
F
7. Let E be the point of intersection of this perpendicular line and circle D.
8. With a straightedge, connect points B and E. Then BE  x .
Since ACBE and AEEC , ABE ~ EBC by Angle-Angle Similarity. Therefore,
the following proportion holds true:
1 BE
, x  BE2 , BE  x . Thus, the

BE
x
construction of a square root is possible.
These five constructions are crucial to the explanation of why the three
geometric problems of antiquity are indeed impossible. Since the rules of
addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and square rooting are possible,
the art of constructing numbers using such rules is possible. Numbers
constructed using straightedge and compass are called constructible numbers. In
terms of field theory, these numbers must lie in certain quadratic extensions of
the rationals.
Since only a compass and straightedge can be used, the only constructions
that can be created are segments and circles. Since an intersection point is often
what is drawn, only an arc of a circle is used and not the entire circle. The
construction of new points comes from the intersection of two lines, two circles,
or a line and a circle. To find the coordinates of these intersections, the resulting
equations would either be linear or quadratic. In either case, the equations are
generally simple to solve either using basic arithmetic to solve linear equations or
the quadratic formula to solve quadratic equations. Thus, the solution will be a
Lamphier Page 13 of 40
number obtained from given numbers using the basic operations of addition,
subtraction, multiplication, division, or taking the square root. All three of the
impossible problems of antiquity are unsolvable under Greek construction rules
because solutions would not have these characteristics. However, the proofs of
showing the impossibility of these problems did not truly come about until the
19th century when geometric concepts could be related to algebraic concepts.
The saying “squaring a circle” has been used throughout the years. The
metaphor is used to describe someone trying to attempt something that is
impossible. From the most ancient documents, dating back as far as 1550 BC, to
more recent documents, the problem of squaring the circle has been recorded.
Of the three ancient problems, the most talked about in recent years is the
squaring of a circle, sometimes referred to as the quadrature of the circle. This
construction entails constructing a square whose area equals that of a given
circle. It was not until 1882 that Carl Louis Ferdinand von Lindemann finally
proved this to be impossible [13].
To describe this problem in mathematical detail, assume to be given some
circle with the radius measuring 1. Therefore the area of the circle is
r 2  1   . A square with the same area would result in s2   therefore
2
s   . In order to construct a square with the same area, the length of a side of
the square must be
 . With the constructions that we know are possible,
taking the square root of a number is no problem. However creating a segment
with a length of π is a problem since π cannot be created by the simple
Lamphier Page 14 of 40
operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division. It is not debated
that a construction can be made ever so close to π. However, a true segment of
length π cannot be constructed.
Lindemann proved that π was a transcendental number therefore proving
the construction of the number π was impossible. Saying that π is transcendental
is the same as saying that π is not the root of any algebraic equation with rational
coefficients. Even after Lindemann proved that this construction was impossible,
many people still attempted to come up with a way to create π. Many so-called
proofs were presented but in the end all of them have been discredited. So in
fact it is impossible to construct a square with an area equal to that of a given
circle.
The next two problems of antiquity, doubling the cube and trisecting an
angle, again are impossible using only a compass and an unmarked straightedge.
However, many mathematicians have shown that both constructions are possible
if a marked straightedge is used. But under the Greeks’ most rigorous rules, only
the unmarked straightedge could be used for drawing segments. For both
problems, we show that a certain cubic equation does not have rational roots. It
then follows that the roots cannot lie in a quadratic extension of the rationals,
and so the problem cannot be solved with straightedge and compass.
In keeping with the rules of the Greeks, doubling the cube is constructing
a cube with twice the volume as a given cube, of course using only a compass
and straightedge. This problem is known as doubling the cube, duplicating the
Lamphier Page 15 of 40
cube, and the Delian problem. During the time of the Greeks this problem was
the most famous. However over the years the problem of squaring the circle has
overshadowed this now runner-up.
This problem has an interesting history all to itself. Of course the accuracy
of these stories themselves has been questioned. The first story is that of Glaucus’
tomb that was originally a cube measuring one hundred feet in each direction.
Minos was not happy with the size of the tomb and ordered it to be made double
the size.
The next and more common story is that of the Delians, which is why this
problem is sometimes referred to as the Delian problem. Some say that the
problem of doubling the cube originated with this story. Around 430 BC there
was a major plague in Athens that in the end claimed the lives of nearly one
quarter of the population. During the height of the plague Athenians asked for
guidance from the Oracle at Delos as to how to appease the gods so that the
plague would come to an end. The Delians were guided to double the size of the
altar to the god Apollo. At first the craftsmen thought to double the length of
each side of the altar. However, they soon realized that this did not double the
size of the altar but in fact it would create an altar eight times the size of the
original. After exhausting their ideas, the Delians asked Plato for advice. He
responded that the Oracle in fact wanted to embarrass the Greeks for their
ignorance of mathematics, primarily their ignorance of geometry. After that
Lamphier Page 16 of 40
time, this problem became so popular that it was studied in detail at Plato’s
Academy.
Mathematicians attempted to solve the problem with no success. Finally,
Hippocrates of Chios showed that the problem was simply the same as finding a
solution to x 3  2a3 , where a is a given segment. Furthermore line segments of x
and y may be found such that:
a x y
 
x y 2a
which leads to…
a3 a3

x 3 x 
a3 1
3 
x
2
3
x  2a3
ax  y 


x 
y 2a

1
2
When showing the impossibility of doubling the cube using only a compass and
straightedge, this information plays an important role.
The impossibility of doubling the cube is equivalent to the impossibility of
solving x 3  2  0 with only a compass and straightedge. Linking again back to
the history of the Delians, the number
3
2 is sometimes referred to as the Delian
constant [20].
A cube of side length one would have a volume of 13  1 . Doubling the
volume would produce a new side length of
3
2 so that the volume would be
 2   2 . In order to construct a cube with twice the volume, x
3
3
3
 2  0 must
Lamphier Page 17 of 40
have rational roots. We will show that x 3  2 is irreducible over the rationals,
and thus its roots will not be in any quadratic extension of the rationals.
Assume that x 3  2  0 does have a rational root,
p
p
where is
q
q
irreducible. Then
3
p 
   2  0
q 
p3
20
q3
p 3

q3  3  2  q3 0
q

p3  2q3  0
p3  2q3
Since p 3  2q3 and 2 is prime, 2 divides p . If 2 divides p, then let p  2r .
p  2q
3
3
2r 3  2q3
8r 3  2q3
4r 3  q3
This implies that 2 divides q also. But this is a contradiction because if
that was the case then
p
would have been reducible. Therefore, x 3  2  0 does
q
not have a rational root and hence the solutions are not constructible.
An alternate way to show this is impossible is to use the Rational Roots
Theorem [7].
Rational Zero Theorem (Rational Roots Theorem):
If a polynomial function,
Lamphier Page 18 of 40
x   an xn  an 1xn 1  an  2xn 2 
 a2x 2  a1x  a0 ,
has integer coefficients, then every rational zeros of ƒ has the
following form:
p
factor of constant term

q factor of leading coefficient
a0
an
Therefore, the possible rational roots for x 3  2  0 would be 1 or 2 . But none
of these are solutions to x 3  2  0 . Since, x 3  2  0 has no rational roots, then
the solutions to x 3  2  0 are not constructible.
The third historic but probably least popular problem is trisecting an
angle. Again, the name describes the problem, dividing a given angle into three
smaller angles all of the same measure. One of the most famous trisection of an
angle solutions, using a compass and marked straightedge, comes from
Archimedes. There are two different constructions that can be completed.
However, both use the same overall concepts.
Given: ABC to be trisected
1. Using a compass, construct a circle with
center B and radius AB , where
A
E
D
B
AB  BC .
2. Mark the distance between A and B.
Lamphier Page 19 of 40
F
C
3. Line up the marked straightedge with point A. Let D be the point of
intersection of this straightedge and BC . Let E be the point of intersection
of circle A and AD .
4. Adjust the straightedge until AB  DE . (This is the tricky part.)
5. Construct a line parallel to AD passing through point B. Let F be the
point of intersection of this parallel line and circle B.
6. Then mFBC 
mABC
3
Proof:
A
Given: AB  DE , mADB  
Prove:  
E
D
B
mABC
3
F
C
Since EB  ED , mEDB  mEBD .
Let mADB   , then mADB  mEBD   .
In a triangle, the exterior angle is equal to the sum of the two remote interior
angles, therefore mAEB  2 .
Since all radii are congruent, BA  BE .
Since BA  BE , mAEB  mBAE  2 .
Since AD BF , mDAB  mABF  2 . (alternate interior angles are congruent)
and mADB  mFBC   . (corresponding angles are congruent).
Using the angle addition postulate,
Lamphier Page 20 of 40
m ABC  mABF  mFBC
m ABC  2  
m ABC  3

.
mABC
3
Thus ABC is trisected using a compass and marked straightedge.
The next construction uses similar geometric rules but is constructed in a
slightly different manner.
Given: ABC to be trisected
A
1. Construct a line parallel to BC passing
through point A.
C
B
2. Using a compass, construct a circle with
center A and radius AB .
3. Mark the distance between A and B.
4.
Line up the marked straightedge with
A
point B. Let D be the point of
D
E
intersection of this straightedge and the
C
B
line parallel to BC . Let E be the point
of intersection of circle A and BD .
5. Adjust the straightedge until AB  DE . (This is the tricky part.)
6. Then mDBC 
mABC
3
Proof:
Given: AB  DE
F
G
Lamphier Page 21 of 40
A
E
D
Prove: mDBC 
mABC
3
Since all radii are congruent, AB  AE .


1
m FB mGE
2
1
 mFAB  mGAE 
2
m ADB 
Since DE  AE , mGAE  mADE .
Furthermore, ADE could also be named ADB
By substitution, mADB 
1
mFAB  mADB  .
2
1
m FAB  mADB 
2
2mADB  mFAB  mADB
3mADB  mFAB
mFAB
mADB 
3
mADB 
Since AD BC , alternate interior angles are congruent. mFAB  mABC
Finally, by substitution, mADB 
mABC
.
3
Again since AD BC , alternate interior angles are congruent. mADB  mDBC
A different method, created by Hippias of Ilis, shows how to trisect an
angle using a curve called the Quadratrix of Hippias. Still another method was
credited to Hippocrates of Chios. Both methods are accurate but again go
against the rigid rules set out by the Greeks, which restricts the tools to only a
compass and unmarked straightedge.
Lamphier Page 22 of 40
A special characteristic of this problem that the others do not have is that
some angles can be trisected, while others cannot. In the other two problems it is
always impossible to square a circle or double a cube. However, if even one
angle cannot be trisected, then we say that the trisection of an angle in general is
impossible. Early on, Gauss always claimed that doubling a cube and trisecting
an angle were impossible, but gave no proof. However, Pierre Laurent Wantzel
proved these problems impossible in an 1837 publication [19]. He showed that
the problem of trisecting an angle was the same as solving a cubic equation.
Knowing this, he showed that few cubics could be solved using a compass and
straightedge only. Therefore, he proved that most angles could not be trisected.
The most common example of an angle that cannot be trisected is 60˚. A
60˚ angle is easily constructed by creating an equilateral triangle. However,
trisecting a 60˚ angle is another problem all together. Not only is it not easy, it is
not possible. In order to trisect an angle of 60˚, an angle of 20˚ must be able to be
constructed. This is the same as constructing the length of the cosine of 20˚. In a
unit circle, the lengths of the sides of a right triangle can be given in terms of
trigonometric functions of its angles. The horizontal length is cosine of  and the
vertical length is sine of  . Thus cosine of 20˚ could be constructed if an angle of
20˚ could be constructed, that is, if we could trisect a 60˚ angle. The impossibility
of constructing cosine of 20˚ comes from the inability to find a constructible
solution to a cubic equation.
Lamphier Page 23 of 40
The trigonometric relationship, cos 3x  4cos 3 x   3cos x, is necessary for the
proof.
cos 3x   cos x cos 2x   sin x sin 2x 
 cos x cos 2 x   sin 2 x   sin x 2sin x cosx 


 cos x  cos 2 x   1  cos 2 x   2sin 2 x cos x 
 cos x 2cos 2 x   1 2sin 2 x cos x 
 2cos 3 x   cos x   21 cos 2 x cos x 
 2cos 3 x   cos x   2cos x   2cos 2 x 
cos 3x   4cos x   3cos x 
3
Why is it impossible to construct the cosine of 20˚?
cos 60  1 2
cos 3  20  1 2
cos 3  20  4cos 3 20  3cos 20
4 cos 20  3cos 20  1 2
3
4 cos 3 20  3cos 20  1 2  0
8cos 3 20  6 cos 20  1  0
if x  cos 20Þ, then 8x3  6x  1  0 .
We show that this cubic equation has no rational roots, and so cosine of 20˚ is not
constructible.
The equation, 8x3  6x  1  0 , does not have any rational roots because
using the Rational Roots Theorem, the only possible rational roots are
1 1 1
 , ,  , 1 . None of these possibilities are roots. Therefore, the solutions to
8 4 2
Lamphier Page 24 of 40
8x3  6x  1  0 are not constructible, so cosine of 20˚ cannot be constructed with
a compass and straightedge alone. In conclusion, the 60˚ angle cannot be
trisected with a compass and straightedge alone.
The level of some of the mathematics necessary to understand the proofs
of the impossibility of the problems of antiquity is well above the high school
level. However, most of the arguments can be understood by high school
seniors. For example, students that have been exposed to trigonometric
identities and the rational roots theorem could definitely analyze the
mathematics that goes into showing these problems impossible. For students to
fully comprehend what geometers of the past constructed, they need to take a
step back in time.
At first, we would discuss the history of constructions and the tools
allowed during the time of the Greeks. Initially, students will only be allowed
paper, a compass, and a straightedge. Although students may get frustrated, it
can be related to the difficulties that the mathematicians of the past might have
had to overcome. This frustration is usually quickly forgotten once they
transition to constructions using technology. Then they can see how the
mathematicians of today have an easier task when it comes to analyzing
constructions and their properties. Throughout the lesson, students will discuss
the details about the constructions and why they are doing what they are doing.
Students will complete the following constructions:
Lamphier Page 25 of 40
1. Construct a congruent segment.
2. Construct a congruent angle.
3. Construct an angle bisector.
4. Construct a line perpendicular to a given line at a point on the
line.
5. Construct a line perpendicular to a given line from a given point
not on the line.
6. Construct a perpendicular bisector of a line segment.
7. Construct a line parallel to a given line.
8. Construct an equilateral triangle.
Challenge Problem: Inscribe a circle in a triangle.
Challenge Problem: Circumscribe a circle about a triangle.
In relating back to the three impossible problems of antiquity, students
will attempt to construct different angle measures. They will determine which
ones can be constructed easily and why others cannot. This will just touch on the
concept of constructible numbers, but will not get into the specific detail. While
constructing these angles, students can also see the lengths that are created by
constructing these angles. There can be some great discussion that can come
from such constructions. Students will attempt the following angle
constructions (not all are possible):
Lamphier Page 26 of 40
1. Construct a 90˚ angle.
2. Construct a 45˚ angle.
3. Construct a 60˚ angle.
4. Construct a 30˚ angle.
5. Construct a 120˚ angle.
6. Construct a 75˚ angle.
7. Construct a 20˚ angle.
Furthermore, students can mathematically analyze how the operations of
addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and square rooting can be shown
through constructions. Therefore, students can show the construction of x  y
and x  y . Moreover, students can use the geometry they already know to show
why the constructions for xy , y x , and
x work.
The importance of constructions can be argued for many reasons.
According to Cathleen Sanders “construction can reinforce proof and lend visual
clarity to many geometric relationships [18].” Robertson claims that
constructions “give the secondary school student, starved for a Piagetian
concrete-operational experience, something tangible [17].
In Pandisico’s article Alternative Geometric Constructions: Promoting Mathematical
Reasoning [16], he states that
“…unless constructions simply ask students to mimic a given
example, they promote true problem solving through the use of
Lamphier Page 27 of 40
reasoning. Finally, constructions promote a spirit of exploration
and discovery and can be guided to the extent that the teacher
desires.
Overall, most mathematicians do agree that constructions are useful. However
the weight that is given to compass and straightedge constructions is where there
is a disagreement. Some educators use constructions as a topic to be covered
only if time permits at the end of the year. Others think it should be
incorporated throughout the course. It seems to depend on each individual’s
history in constructions as to which they prefer.
Most educators in general will agree there are several different types of
student learning styles: auditory, visual, and manipulative. Constructions can
be a nice combination of all of these. Due to age, physical or mental impairments,
or just plain sloppiness, some students may have difficulties with the preciseness
of compass and straightedge constructions. This lack of preciseness can
sometimes be remedied with the use of technology.
Today, in the world of computer technology, there are many resources for
a geometry classroom. The most common is “dynamic geometry” software. The
word dynamic is used to describe the ability to “click and drag” the
constructions to see that properties will always hold. Rather than having to
construct the same type of construction again, this software allows for the
construction to be “moved” to notice what will always hold true. The students
Lamphier Page 28 of 40
will analyze the constructions and determine what changes and what stays the
same.
Students have the ability to manipulate shapes in order to investigate
patterns, write conjectures, and test these conjectures [3]. On the other hand, the
word used to describe compass and straightedge constructions is static. Static
means immobile, stationary, unmoving, and fixed. Static constructions do not
have the strong impact as those of dynamic constructions.
The first dynamic geometry software program was the Geometric Supposer.
After advancements in technology the next program was Cabri Géomètre. This
program was first incorporated onto the Texas Instruments graphing calculator,
TI-92. Cabri Junior is now preloaded on the TI-84 Plus and the TI Voyage 200 and
is also available for download on the TI-92 Plus, TI-89 Plus, and TI-83 Plus
graphing calculators. The more commonly used program today is The Geometer’s
Sketchpad. This program is preloaded on the TI Voyage 200 graphing calculator
and is used primarily as computer software.
Kissane [6] describes how this type of software might change the outlook
of geometry just as other technology has changed to focus in other areas of
mathematics.
“After the hand calculator was invented, arithmetic could never be
the same again. Following the invention of data analysis software,
statistics could never be the same again. Now that algebra is
available not only on large computer systems, but also on graphics
calculators and personal technologies like the TI-92, algebra and
Lamphier Page 29 of 40
calculus can never be the same again. It now seems, too, that
geometry can never be the same again. ”
Not every mathematician is an advocate of this new advancement in
geometry. Some believe it to be cheating. Some educators, in the past and even
to this day, view the use of calculators as cheating in certain situations. But all
educators realize the importance of student higher order thinking that can be
achieved by analyzing problems instead of doing long arithmetic. In regards to
constructions, the opponents of programs such as The Geometer’s Sketchpad argue
that students no longer realize the importance of proof. Students will mindlessly
follow a set of directions and not pay attention to the details of what they are
doing and why. Similarly, this could happen just as some students may
mindlessly find the derivative of an equation and not know what they are in fact
finding. This does not mean that students should not be taught the short cut of
finding derivatives. There will be students that are not concerned about the
why’s of mathematics. But educators have to encourage an interest in
mathematics as much as possible.
The use of technology in the geometry classroom has only been common
in the past decade. Who knows how educators will view the use of dynamic
geometry software in the future? Overall, however, most educators see the true
benefits of using technology in the geometry classroom. As Brad Glass [3]
Lamphier Page 30 of 40
answers the question of how technology can be used to help students learn
geometry,
“…computing tools can help students (a) focus on the relevant
aspects of a problem or figure, (b) function at higher levels of
geometric understanding, (c) distinguish between drawings and
constructions, and (d) develop and reason about conjectures on the
basis of generalizations of patterns that unfold during exploration.”
Dynamic software programs help to visualize a relationship but do not provide a
formal proof using appropriate geometry definition, postulates, and theorems.
However, experimentation and analysis used with technology can be a great
transition into formal proof.
There list of activities using dynamic geometry software as endless.
Specifically, Key Curriculum Press has an Exploring Geometry with The Geometer’s
Sketchpad resource [1] that has ten chapters worth of materials. Teachers do not
have to come up with activities on their own. The directions and diagrams are
detailed and can be easily followed by students of varying abilities.
The topics covered are as follows…
1. Lines and Angles
2. Transformations, Symmetry, and Tessellations
Lamphier Page 31 of 40
3. Triangles
4. Quadrilaterals
5. Polygons
6. Circles
7. Area
8. The Pythagorean Theorem
9. Similarity
10. Trigonometry and Fractals
In addition to student activities, there is a multitude of guided demonstrations.
These demonstrations can work well on an individual student basis and also as a
teacher only demonstration.
Students can also use The Geometer’s Sketchpad as an accurate compass and
straightedge. For those students that are not accurate with a compass, The
Geometer’s Sketchpad can be an essential tool. They can understand the concepts
and constructions without having to worry about human drawing inaccuracy. If
students only use The Geometer’s Sketchpad and do not discuss compass and
straightedge construction, the true geometry behind these computer programs
could be lost. Therefore, only after students have made some constructions
using a compass and straightedge should students then make similar
constructions using The Geometer’s Sketchpad. Teachers have to decide how much
of the program the students can use. Some teachers may only allow the point,
line, and circle tools to be used. Whereas, other teachers may allow the shortcuts
Lamphier Page 32 of 40
that The Geometer’s Sketchpad offers. As the students construct using The
Geometer’s Sketchpad it is important to discuss how these dynamic constructions
relate to compass and straightedge constructions and the history of
constructions.
Regardless of how much a teacher uses technology or the method of
integrating this technology, students and teachers alike enjoy the benefits of
advancements in technology. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM) published Principles and Standards for School Mathematics in 2000 with
specific geometry standards for grades 9-12 . In agreement with most students
and teachers, this publication emphasized the importance of dynamic geometry
software in the geometry classroom.
When deciding on curriculum, the state and national standards should be
examined. The NCTM has a standard specific to Geometry. The broad standard
is broken down into four sub-standards as follows:
1. Analyze characteristic and properties of two- and three-dimensional
geometric shapes and develop mathematical arguments about geometric
relationships.
2. Specify locations and describe spatial relationships using coordinate
geometry and other representational systems.
3. Apply transformations and use symmetry to analyze mathematical
situations.
Lamphier Page 33 of 40
4. Use visualization, spatial reasoning, and geometric modeling to solve
problems.
Although all of these standards are important, the ones that most directly deal
with constructions are standards one and four. Standard four is further broken
down into the following expectations:

Draw and construct representations of two- and three-dimensional
geometric objects using a variety of tools;

Visualize three-dimensional objects and spaces from different perspectives
and analyze their cross-sections;

Use vertex-edge graphs to model and solve problems;

Use geometric models to gain insights into, and answer question in, other
areas of mathematics;

Use geometric ideas to solve problems in, and gain insights into, other
disciplines and other areas of interest such as art and architecture.
Furthermore, an expectation of sub-standard one is to “establish the validity of
geometric conjectures using deduction, prove theorems, and critique arguments
made by others.” These sub-standards and expectations clearly show that higher
order geometric thinking is expected of high school students.
The most obvious expectation related to geometric constructions is that
students should be able to “draw and construct representations of two- and
Lamphier Page 34 of 40
three-dimensional geometric objects using a variety of tools.” Clearly students
can not ignore the constructions of the past. In order to use a variety of tools
students may use a paper and pencil, compass and straightedge, or dynamic
geometry software. Students should not focus on just one method but many.
Another standard set out by the NCTM is Reasoning and Proof. Students
should be able to

Recognize reasoning and proof as fundamental aspects of mathematics;

Make and investigate mathematical conjectures;

Develop and evaluate mathematical arguments and proofs;

Select and use various types of reasoning methods of proof [9].
Again, students can not ignore formal proofs. Even though exploring and
making conjectures using The Geometer’s Sketchpad is helpful and interesting, it
does not prove something to be true. This investigating and conjecturing can be
a solid link to more formal geometry.
Illinois State Standards also have high expectations for high schoolers in
terms of geometric thinking. Illinois’ State Goal 9 states that student should
“use geometric methods to analyze, categorize and draw conclusions about
points, lines, planes, and space.” This goal is further broken down as follows:
A. Demonstrate and apply geometric concepts involving points, lines,
planes, and space.
Lamphier Page 35 of 40
B. Identify, describe, classify and compare relationships using points, lines,
planes, and solids.
C. Construct convincing arguments and proofs to solve problems.
D. Use trigonometric ratios and circular functions to solve problems.
Similar to the NCTM standards, the Illinois standards are also broken down into
specific expectations. Some of the related expectations are:

9.B.4 – Recognize and apply relationships within and among geometric
figures.

9.C.4a – Construct and test logical arguments for geometric situations
using technology where appropriate.

9.C.4b – Construct and communicate convincing arguments for geometric
situations.

9.C.4c. – Develop and communicate mathematical proofs (e.g., twocolumn, paragraph, indirect) and counter examples for geometric
statements [5].
Again, these standards clearly correlate with constructions both with and
without the use of technology. Students must know how to think
“geometrically.” Constructions and proof are still a part of the state and national
Lamphier Page 36 of 40
standards. Overall, geometry is a core part of mathematics. Students have had
to know and will continue to have to know about constructions and proofs.
How students continue to learn about constructions and proof is
changing. Some say for the better; some say for the worse. But with the
advancement of technology and resources, students have more opportunities to
see constructions and proofs in a variety of ways. However, just because the
world is moving ahead does not mean that the history should be forgotten.
The methods of today are just as important as the history of the past. With the
knowledge of both the old and new methods, students can compare and contrast
to determine which method better suites a particular problem. Just as the Oracle
of Delos believed of the Athenians, teachers should believe of their students:
students need to recognize the importance of mathematics and geometry in
general.
Lamphier Page 37 of 40
References
[1]
Bennett, Dan. Exploring Geometry with The Geometer’s Sketchpad. Key
Curriculum Press, CA, 2002.
[2]
Gallian, Joseph A. Contemporary Abstract Algebra. D.C. Heath and
Company, MA, 1994.
[3]
Glass, Brad. “Making Better Use of Computer Tools in Geometry.”
Mathematics Teacher 94, no. 3 (March 2001): 224-229.
[4]
Heath, Sir Thomas L.A History of Greek Mathematics, Dover Edition, Dover
Publications, NY, 1981, 218-270 (1st edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford,
1921)
Lamphier Page 38 of 40
[5]
Illinois State Board of Education. Illinois Learning Standards. IL, 1997.
[6]
Kissane, Barry. Geometry Meets the Computer. Cross Section 8(1), 1996, 3-8.
[7]
Larson, Boswell, Kanold, and Stiff. Algebra 2. McDougal Littell, IL, 2004
[8]
Marshall, Gerald L.; Rich, Beverly S. “The Role of History in a
Mathematics Class.” Mathematics Teacher 93, no. 8 (November 2000):
704-706
[9]
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Principles and
Standards for School Mathematics. Reson, VA: NCTM, 2000.
[10]
O’Connor, J. J.; Roberson, E. F. “Doubling the Cube” from MacTutor,
http://www-history.mcs.standrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Doubling_the_cube.html
[11]
O’Connor, J. J.; Roberson, E. F. “Thomas Little Heath” from MacTutor,
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Heath.html
[12]
O’Connor, J. J.; Roberson, E. F. “Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky” from
MacTutor, http://www-history.mcs.standrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Lobachevsky.html
[13]
O’Connor, J. J.; Roberson, E. F. “Squaring a Circle” from MacTutor,
http://www-history.mcs.standrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Squaring_the_circle.html
[14]
O’Connor, J. J.; Roberson, E. F. “Thales of Miletus” from MacTutor,
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Thales.html
Lamphier Page 39 of 40
[15]
O’Connor, J. J.; Roberson, E. F. “Trisecting an Angle” from MacTutor,
http://www-history.mcs.standrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Trisecting_an_angle.html
[16]
Pandisico, Eric A. “Alternative Geometric Constructions: Promoting
Mathematical Reasoning.” Mathematics Teacher 95, no. 1 (January 2002):
32-36.
[17]
Robertson, Jack M. “Geometric Constructions Using Hinged Mirrors.”
Mathematics Teacher 79 (May 1986): 380-386.
[18]
Sanders, Cathleen V. “Sharing Teaching Ideas: Geometric Constructions:
Visualizing and Understanding Geometry.” Mathematics Teacher 91
(October 1998): 554-556.
[19]
Weisstein, Eric W. “Geometric Construction.” from MathWorld—A
Wolfram Web Resource.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GeometricConstrutions.html
[20]
Weisstein, Eric W. “Cube Duplication.” from MathWorld—A Wolfram
Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubDuplication.html
Lamphier Page 40 of 40